Uncategorized
Netflix’s ‘You People’ wasn’t funny at all to my Black and Mexican Jewish family
(JTA) — As a couple that is two parts Jew, one part Black, and all parts lovers of comedy, my husband and I sat with hopes (maybe not high ones) to watch Netflix’s “You People.”
It’s not often that we see our cultures represented together in buzzy movies, especially not ones set in Los Angeles, the city we love so much, and with the comedy king Eddie Murphy in the cast, and we were excited about the possibility of seeing ourselves reflected in the story of blended Black and Jewish families.
Unfortunately, at the expense of comedy greats including Murphy, Jonah Hill, Deon Cole, Elliot Gould and Julia Louis Dreyfus (with cameos by so many others!), the movie ended up being a painful reminder of how our family — made up of Mexican and Black Jews with Ashkenazi roots — so often must explain and justify our existence in Jewish and Black spaces.
The movie starts off with Jonah Hill’s character very comfortably recording his podcast about “the culture” (ostensibly, hip-hop culture?) with his Black, queer best friend, seeming to set the stage for the progressive coolness that will later allow him to date someone who is not “square” and potentially Black. Hill’s character loves rap music, sneaker culture and Roscoe’s Chicken and Waffles, and he knows not to say the full title of that song from Jay-Z and Kanye West’s “Watch The Throne” album.
Yet we find him in scenarios that time and again have him playing into uncomfortable tropes — like saying “our boy” when referring to Malcolm X — as he quickly and nervously falls into defining Black culture at its most reductionist form. It’s no surprise then, that the film goes on to portray Blackness as a monolithic, one-dimensional stereotype.
It doesn’t get any better when we see Hill’s character in a Jewish space: High Holiday services at the Skirball Cultural Center, here serving as a synagogue. There and throughout the movie, Jews are portrayed as white and uncool — sometimes aggressively so, almost as if the writers didn’t trust the audience to know this family is Jewish if not for the mom complaining about tattoos and trying to set up her son with a highly educated daughter of a friend.
My husband and I have been to the Skirball Center on many occasions, one of them being a wedding for two supremely cool Jews of color. But you would never know from the movie that such an event could ever take place, or even that Jews of color exist in Los Angeles — even though, ironically, the actor playing Jonah Hill’s eventual love interest is Black and identifies as half-Jewish. Instead, in creating the world for “You People,” the writers continue a dated tradition of movies that overly simplify the worlds they depict based on racial binaries.
This flattened view of the world is especially lamentable because the rom-com genre has at its fingertips the easiest blueprint: All families are ridiculous and oftentimes the blending of two families even more so. Within my family alone, there are several different cultures that consistently push against each other in humorous ways. There’s “nerd culture,” “comic book culture,” “skate culture,” “food culture.” Even in my culturally blended family, where my Mexican immigrant parents regularly share meals with my Black mother-in-law, the resulting humor has never been about racial differences. In a story where the message is that we can all get along, we don’t need the punchline to be about race.
The Silversteins, from left: Joshua, Ami, Laila, Shel and Cinthya, outside of their Los Angeles home in 2021. (Casey Durkin/NBC)
“You People” could have told a story in which Jonah Hill’s character actually subverts the standard narrative, maybe one in which his character realizes how easy it is to fetishize Blackness and through experiences with his father-in-law comes to find the richness and fullness of Black culture that can even be expanded by his own Jewish background when blending his family with his fiancée’s. Or a movie in which a member of the Nation of Islam tries to openly accept a Jewish son-in-law and, rather than using Louis Farrakhan as an awkwardly divisive plot point, we see instead a Muslim Eddie Murphy try to find ways to connect with modern day hip-hop culture. Either option would allow the audience to see the layers in these characters that we are so often erased from narratives about Jewishness or Blackness.
Instead the writers opted for the easiest avenue: comedy based on persistent racial “othering.” But the differences shown are no longer based on any actual truth. They are based on beliefs we have been told to keep repeating in an effort to keep the agenda of white supremacy intact. The writers are depicting worn-out “differences” that don’t represent an authentic Jewish or authentic Black experience. Presenting any cultural experience as the “authentic” one is just another way of saying stereotypes are true — and that’s not funny at all.
Several years ago, my family participated in Ava Duvernay’s life-swap show in which we traded homes and experiences with a family of white Mormons. Our goal at the time was to show examples of coexistence and to demonstrate how contemporary identities are multilayered. But we also hoped that the experience would help us find greater acceptance as Jews of color, which still feels generally elusive. “You People” underscored for us why.
At one point during the life-swap, my husband said to me, “Listen, when you’re Black and Jewish, and everything hurts, laughter is the best medicine.” But laughter doesn’t come easily when the jokes only make sense if you don’t exist.
Sure, there were a few chuckles in my house during “You People.” The comedian Mike Epps was funny as he always is, and I laughed when Jonah Hill showed up to his date in a tie-dye sweatsuit, in a very L.A. move. But for nearly two hours, all I could think about was how “You People” feels like a movie for folks who are clinging to stereotypes because it helps them feel comfortable with their own cultural identities, which once were dominant but now must share real estate with others that are equally authentic. By confining the definition of culture to a singular idea of “race” this movie prevents an important conversation from moving forward. And that means my family, and so many other Jewish families, are once again left behind.
—
The post Netflix’s ‘You People’ wasn’t funny at all to my Black and Mexican Jewish family appeared first on Jewish Telegraphic Agency.
Uncategorized
If Iran Won’t Deal, Trump Must Make the Cost of Refusal Unbearable
A US Navy sailor signals an F/A-18E Super Hornet on the flight deck of the Nimitz-class aircraft carrier USS Abraham Lincoln in support of the Operation Epic Fury attack on Iran at an undisclosed location, March 4, 2026. Photo: US Navy/Handout via REUTERS
The ceasefire with Iran is expiring. The talks collapsed after 21 hours in Islamabad. Iran has closed the Strait of Hormuz. Trump himself, speaking aboard Air Force One, put the choice plainly: “Maybe I won’t extend [the ceasefire]. So you have a blockade, and unfortunately, we’ll have to start dropping bombs again.”
That is the right instinct. But dropping bombs alone is not a strategy. It is a continuation of what has not worked. The question before the administration is not whether to apply pressure, but what kind of pressure actually changes Iran’s calculus. The answer requires being honest about what the war has so far failed to accomplish, and clear about what must follow.
Start with what the strikes achieved and what they did not. The United States and Israel killed Iran’s supreme leader, wiped out much of its senior military command, and damaged its nuclear facilities. These were historic accomplishments. But US intelligence assessments say Iran’s regime likely will remain in place for now, weakened but more hardline, with the Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) exerting greater control. As one analyst put it: “When President Trump says he has changed the regime in Iran, he’s right in one sense: he’s changed it to a much more radicalized regime.” The war shifted who holds power in Tehran, but it did not shift what that power wants.
The IRGC, which now runs Iran more openly than at any point since 1979, looks at the nuclear question through the lens of survival. Analysts say the IRGC will be looking toward the example of North Korea, noting that the country has not been subject to attacks precisely because it possesses a nuclear deterrent. Former Supreme Leader Khamenei’s fatwa banning a nuclear bomb died with him, and for any military whose conventional deterrence has been degraded, the ultimate deterrent is now “a very attractive prospect.”
This is the central strategic reality the Trump administration must accept: Iran’s incentive to acquire a nuclear weapon has increased, not decreased, as a result of the war. Bombing alone will not change that. Only a combination of measures that makes the pursuit of the bomb more costly than abandoning it can.
The first requirement is maintaining the naval blockade unconditionally, regardless of Iranian announcements about Hormuz openings. Iran has been selectively admitting ships from China, Turkey, Pakistan, and India under bilateral arrangements while blocking others, converting the strait into a political instrument rather than surrendering the leverage it provides. A blockade that can be circumvented through side deals is not a blockade. It is theater. CENTCOM must enforce the blockade against all sanctioned traffic without exceptions, including Chinese tankers, and Trump must be prepared to make that enforcement the hill his presidency stands on, economically and diplomatically.
The second requirement is activating European snap-back sanctions immediately. Secretary of State Marco Rubio urged European countries on April 18 to quickly reimpose sanctions, warning that Iran is approaching nuclear weapons capability. This call should not have been made publicly as a request. It should have been delivered as a condition. Washington has leverage over European access to American markets and defense cooperation that it has consistently refused to use in Iran policy. That reluctance must end. A European sanctions regime that closes off the money that the blockade does not reach, will give Iran no economic off-ramp that does not run through US terms.
The third requirement is the most uncomfortable to name. The Iranian people have already done the work the administration hoped bombing would do. Surveys conducted inside Iran show that Iranians believe protests, foreign pressure, and intervention are more likely to bring about political change than elections and reforms. The regime is militarily weakened, culturally weakened, and economically weakened, with a plummeting currency. Protests that began in December 2025 over economic conditions grew into nationwide demonstrations in all 31 provinces, with hundreds of thousands participating and calls shifting from economic grievances to the overthrow of the Islamic Republic itself. This is the most significant popular uprising Iran has seen since 1979, and it is happening right now, under the weight of the war and the blockade.
Trump called on the Iranian people to take their government at the outset of the war. He should not abandon that call as a diplomatic inconvenience. Materially supporting the opposition, providing Internet access to circumvent the regime’s blackout, and making unambiguous public commitments to the protesters that American pressure will not cease while the IRGC shoots demonstrators in the street are actions within the administration’s power. They cost nothing militarily and they impose a political cost on the regime that no bomb can replicate.
A deal that leaves Iran with a five-year enrichment window and underground missile cities under reconstruction is not a deal. It is a countdown. Trump knows what the alternative looks like. He should pursue it.
Amine Ayoub, a fellow at the Middle East Forum, is a policy analyst and writer based in Morocco. Follow him on X: @amineayoubx
Uncategorized
Podcast Hosts and Others Must Continue to Call Out Tucker Carlson for His Hatred
Tucker Carlson speaks on July 18, 2024, during the final day of the Republican National Convention at the Fiserv Forum in Milwaukee, Wisconsin. Photo: Jasper Colt-USA TODAY via Reuters Connect
Patrick Bet-David, host of the PBD podcast, made an open video to Tucker Carlson in which he offered to have accountants check Bet-David’s finances as well as his wife’s, to see if Israel has given him money. At the same time, the accountants would look into Carlson and his wife to see if Qatar or other countries have given Carlson money.
Though Carlson will certainly not agree to it, it is a good step to put pressure on Carlson. Carlson’s goal is to turn Christians against Israel — and right now, against Trump. It’s not by chance that he falsely claimed Israeli President Isaac Herzog was on Epstein island. There’s no evidence of it, and Carlson made it up out of his desire to vilify Israel.
Bet-David did an interview with Netanyahu, and didn’t call him a genocider — which was tough for Carlson to handle. Carlson absurdly thought Netanyahu would sit for an interview with him. It will never happen because Carlson, whether motivated by money, revenge, or something we don’t know, has been on the warpath against Israel and Jews, obsessively speaking about these two topics. In addition, he is suddenly buddies with those on the far-left who also hate Israel. Known as the horseshoe effect, those on the far-right and far-left can disagree on everything under the sun, but unite in their hatred of Jews.
Carlson is charismatic and has great delivery, though I’m not sure why his absurd laugh hasn’t thrown people off. In this attention economy, it’s about starting conversations. Bet-David smartly put it out there for Carlson to show transparency, which he will not do. What makes this interesting is that when Carlson was first ousted from Fox News, Bet-David made it publicly known that he was offering Carlson a huge amount of money to work for him. This was before Carlson became anti-Israel.
Bet-David was born in Iran, and fled the country to come to America. Bet-David was also right to question why Carlson was downplaying the harms of Sharia law, and focusing on what Carlson thought were its benefits.
My hope is that this leads to Carlson coming on Bet-David’s show. I doubt he will, although there is a small chance because he may think Bet-David is not as intellectual as Douglas Murray or Ben Shapiro. While that’s true, Bet-David is charismatic, can make good points at times, and his experience seeing the evils of Iran firsthand would make for an interesting conversation with Carlson.
It is hard to understand why people believe the things that Carlson and Candace Owens say, though their personalities can be entertaining, and someone unaware of facts perhaps might think they were correct.
Irrespective of the outcome of the Iran war, Carlson is ready with the narrative that it is a disaster. He said that millions could die if America attacked Iran’s nuclear facilities before Trump took action last June. Of course, that didn’t happen. Being wrong has no consequences in Carlson’s mind; it’s about ratcheting up hatred of Israel and positioning it as an enemy of America. At times, it seems Carlson is the one standing against America. As Bet-David pointed out, Carlson said that Sharia law was leading the Muslim world to thrive, while it was declining under America. Carlson also had everyone believing that he was a big fan of President Donald Trump, until text messages revealed he hated him.
While I have my criticisms of Bet-David for not asking tougher questions to idiotic and Jew-hating guests, he deserves credit for calling out Carlson and outing him under the microscope. Because when that is done, what we find is quite ugly. Carlson, through charisma and absurdity, is trying to mainstream the idea that Israel is the enemy of America. He is hoping to reel people in on the lie that Israel bullied America into the war. That’s not the case — and everyone who knows that must continually question Tucker on it.
The author is a writer based in New York.
Uncategorized
The Media Is Biased Against Israel; What Should We Do About It?
The New York Times building in New York City. Photo: Wikimedia Commons
Where do we turn when we want to understand Israel as it actually is? Many people still instinctively answer with confidence: newspapers.
It feels rational, grounded, almost automatic. Yet the deeper you look into the global media landscape, the more that confidence begins to erode. What appears to be information often carries something more subtle beneath the surface. It carries intention, framing, and sometimes an agenda that quietly reshapes reality.
Across Israeli media alone, the range is undeniable. Haaretz represents a distinctly left-leaning voice, often sharply critical of Israeli policy and identity. Israel Hayom stands firmly on the right, reflecting a more nationalist perspective. Between them sit publications with all kinds of views.
Diversity in the media is often celebrated as a cornerstone of democracy. In theory, it should strengthen understanding. In practice, it can create confusion when the same reality is presented through completely different lenses. The problem is not that perspectives differ. The problem is that language itself becomes a battleground, shaping perception long before facts are even considered.
Words define the limits of thought. When certain terms are repeated often enough, they stop being questioned. They become accepted truth. The choice between “West Bank” and “Judea and Samaria” is not simply semantic. It reflects history, identity, and legitimacy. One term suggests a modern political construct, the other connects to thousands of years of Jewish presence. The same applies when Jewish communities are labeled as settlements while Arab communities are described as towns. These are not neutral distinctions. They carry implicit judgments that influence how readers interpret reality.
There is a third category: outlets that challenge the normalization of narratives that undermine Israel’s legitimacy. News outlets that refuse to adopt language that distorts historical context do not eliminate bias, but make their perspective transparent rather than disguising it as objectivity.
The broader issue extends beyond terminology. In much of the global media, there is an undercurrent that frames Israel as an outsider, a disruptor, even a colonial presence. This framing is rarely stated outright, yet it appears through emphasis, omission, and tone. Running negative stories about Israel, and positive stories about Gaza is one example that shapes how a country is perceived. Over time, repetition turns suggestion into assumption. Readers absorb these narratives without realizing how deeply they have been shaped.
At the same time, the boundaries of acceptable speech have shifted. On social media platforms, expressing certain criticisms can lead to immediate consequences. Yet hostility toward Israel often circulates freely, sometimes crossing into open antisemitism without similar repercussions. This imbalance does not create fairness. It creates distortion.
Education, which should serve as a safeguard against such distortion, is not immune either. In parts of Europe, including the Netherlands, concerns have emerged about how Holocaust education is approached in increasingly diverse classrooms. When historical truth becomes something to be softened or avoided, the consequences extend far beyond the classroom. Memory fades, context disappears, and space is created for narratives that would otherwise be challenged.
Against this backdrop, the role of media becomes even more critical. Journalism should not be about shaping reality to fit a narrative. It should be about presenting facts with clarity and context. Yet when neutrality becomes a mask for selective framing, trust begins to erode.
This is why clarity matters. Not forced neutrality, not artificial balance, but honest positioning. Readers are not misled by perspective. They are misled by the illusion of objectivity when it does not truly exist.
The responsibility does not lie solely with journalists. Readers must also engage actively, questioning what they read, recognizing patterns, and seeking context beyond headlines. Passive consumption allows narratives to take root unchecked. Critical thinking challenges them.
Standing for Israel in today’s information landscape is not simply about defending policies or decisions. It is about defending the integrity of language and the accuracy of history. It is about refusing to accept distortions simply because they are repeated often enough.
Sabine Sterk is the CEO of Time To Stand Up For Israel.